Re: Oz the Great and Powerful (Sam Raimi, 2013)
Posted: Thu Mar 14, 2013 2:19 pm
I didn't have the same terrible reaction that CSM did but it wasn't very good. There was a lot I liked about it, such as the attempt to create a similar look to the MGM film including the real foreground sets in front of CGI backgrounds that, at times, seemed to resemble matte paintings (at least in the 2D version, I'm guessing the 3D version adds more depth.) Liked the black and white/1.33:1 opening and how it turns to colour and expands to 2.40:1 when in Oz, if only to see the look on my daughter's face, just like when she saw the '39 film and it went from sepia to colour. Even if they were out of place I also got a kick out of the Evil Dead references (two other people in the theater chuckled at those moments) and liked the intensity of the Wicked Witch once she was revealed--she also absolutely terrified my daughter.
But I hated the reasoning for how she becomes the Wicked Witch, and was annoyed that they even felt some sort of back story was neccessary. Franco was also horribly miscast and he comes off too aloof and detached from everything, almost as if he's playing the role similar to how he played his stoner role in Pineapple Express. I'm not sure what young actor may have been right, but I almost feel an older actor would have been a better choice. For some reason I feel Tom Hanks would have been a much better option.
I am curious: for those who saw the 3D version was the black-and-white opening in 3D? I would have guessed, since they went with the Academy ratio and black-and-white they would have kept it as low-tech as possible, but there were some shots that seemed to be going for that 3D jolt effect.
My daughter liked it though admitted she prefers the '39 film ("the old Oz movie" as she calls it.) Though she still wants me to buy it (on Blu-ray) when "it comes out."
But I hated the reasoning for how she becomes the Wicked Witch, and was annoyed that they even felt some sort of back story was neccessary. Franco was also horribly miscast and he comes off too aloof and detached from everything, almost as if he's playing the role similar to how he played his stoner role in Pineapple Express. I'm not sure what young actor may have been right, but I almost feel an older actor would have been a better choice. For some reason I feel Tom Hanks would have been a much better option.
I am curious: for those who saw the 3D version was the black-and-white opening in 3D? I would have guessed, since they went with the Academy ratio and black-and-white they would have kept it as low-tech as possible, but there were some shots that seemed to be going for that 3D jolt effect.
My daughter liked it though admitted she prefers the '39 film ("the old Oz movie" as she calls it.) Though she still wants me to buy it (on Blu-ray) when "it comes out."